Scores of short and free scale for Big Five explain perceived stress at different stages of life: validity, reliability and measurement invariance of the Polish adaptation of Mini-IPIP
More details
Hide details
Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
Submission date: 2019-08-26
Final revision date: 2020-01-08
Acceptance date: 2020-01-20
Online publication date: 2020-05-15
Publication date: 2020-05-18
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2020;8(1):73-82
Big-Five personality traits are related to a variety of quality of life outcomes; therefore, they should arguably be controlled for whenever health and well-being are investigated. Valid and reliable short measures of these constructs may enable large scale epidemiological studies. Stress is a well-recognized risk factor for a host of health-related outcomes and its relationship with Big-Five personality is well-evidenced. The aim of this re-search was to investigate psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Mini-IPIP scale measuring Big Five personality factors. This included measurement invariance between genders and between two samples representing different stages of life – an employee sample and an adolescent sample – and investigating the relationships of Big Five personality traits with perceived stress.

Participants and procedure:
Sample 1 comprised 723 employees from a wide range of professions and sample 2 comprised 765 high school students. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4) was used in each sample.

The Mini-IPIP had an acceptable fit and reliability in both samples and showed measurement invariance be-tween samples and between genders within the samples. Big Five personality traits explained the variance in perceived stress similarly in both samples, and analogously to previous studies.

The present study shows that the Polish version is a valid and reliable psychometric tool and provides evidence that the relationship between personality and stress is relatively stable at different life stages, and can be effec-tively investigated with short measures.

Anaby, D., Jarus, T., Backman, C. L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2010). The role of occupational characteristics and occupational imbalance in explaining well-being. Applied Research Quality Life, 5, 81–104.
Atroszko, P. A. (2015). The structure of study addiction: Selected risk factors and the relationship with stress, stress coping and psychosocial functioning (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Gdansk, Poland.
Atroszko, P. A., Balcerowska, J. M., Bereznowski, P., Biernatowska, A., Pallesen, S., & Andreassen, C. S. (2018). Facebook addiction among Polish undergraduate students: Validity of measurement and relationship with personality and well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 329–338.
Atroszko, P. A., Pallesen, S., Griffiths, M. D., & Andreassen, C. S. (2017). Work addiction in Poland: Adaptation of the Bergen Work Addiction Scale and relationship with psychopathology. Health Psychology Report, 5, 345–355.
Baldasaro, R. E., Shanahan, M. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Mini-IPIP in a large, nationally representative sample of young adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 74–84.
Bunevicius, A., Katkute, A., & Bunevicius, R. (2008). Symptoms of anxiety and depression in medical students and in humanities students: Relationship with Big Five personality dimensions and vulner-ability to stress. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 54, 494–501.
Burns, G. N., Morris, M. B., Periard, D. A., Lahuis, D., Flannery, N. M., Carretta, T. R., & Roebke, M. (2017). Criterion-related validity of a Big Five general factor of personality from the TIPI to the IPIP. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25, 213–222.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struc-tural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.
Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., & Miller, G. E. (2007). Psychological stress and disease. JAMA, 298, 1685–1687.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080–1107.
Cooper, A. J., Smillie, L. D., & Corr, P. J. (2010). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 688–691.
Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 102, 874–888.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.
Ebstrup, J. F., Eplov, L. F., Pisinger, C., & Jørgensen, T. (2011). Association between the Five Factor personality traits and perceived stress: Is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy? Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 24, 407–419.
Feng, D., Ji, L., & Yin, Z. (2013). Personality, perceived occupational stressor, and health-related quality of life among Chinese judges. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9, 911-921.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personal-ity domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
Gutiérrez, J. L., Jiménez, B. M., Hernández, E. G., & Puente, C. P. (2005). Personality and subjective well-being: Big Five correlates and demographic variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1561–1569.
Hamby, T., Taylor, W., Snowden, A. K., & Peterson, R. A. (2015). A meta-analysis of the reliability of free and for-pay Big Five scales. The Journal of Psychology, 150, 422–430.
Haslam, N., Whelan, J., & Bastian, B. (2009). Big Five traits mediate associations between values and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 40–42.
Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality invento-ries be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332–346.
Iacovino, J. M., Bogdan, R., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2015). Personality predicts health declines through stressful life events during late mid-life. Journal of Personality, 84, 536–546.
Iwasa, H., & Yoshida, Y. (2018). Psychometric evaluation of the Japanese version of Ten-Item Per-sonality Inventory (TIPI-J) among middle-aged, and elderly adults: Concurrent validity, internal con-sistency and test-retest reliability. Cogent Psychology, 5.
Kemper, C. J., Trapp, S., Kathmann, N., Samuel, D. B., & Ziegler, M. (2018). Short versus long scales in clinical assessment: Exploring the trade-off between resources saved and psychometric quality lost using two measures of obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Assessment, 26, 767–782.
Laverdière, O., Morin, A. J., & St-Hilaire, F. (2013). Factor structure and measurement invariance of a short measure of the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 739–743.
Luo, J., Derringer, J., Briley, D. A., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Genetic and environmental pathways un-derlying personality traits and perceived stress: Concurrent and longitudinal twin studies. European Journal of Personality, 31, 614–629.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation model-ing. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491.
Muck, P. M., Hell, B., & Gosling, S. D. (2007). Construct validation of a short five-factor model in-strument: a self-peer study on the German adaptation of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-G). European Journal of Psychological Assessment 23, 166–175.
Oliveira, J. P. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale. Current Psychology, 38, 432–439.
Oshio, A., Abe, S., Cutrone, P., & Gosling, S. D. (2014). Further validity of the Japanese version of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J). Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 236–244.
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90.
Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? The limits of personality as-sessment and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 212–220.
Rojas, S. L., & Widiger, T. A. (2013). Convergent and discriminant validity of the five-factor form. As-sessment, 21, 143–157.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjec-tive well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161.
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowiński, T. (2014). The circumplex of personality metatraits: a synthesizing model of personality based on the Big Five. Review of General Psychology, 18, 273-286.
Topolewska, E., Skimina, E., Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowiński, T. (2014). The short IPIP-BFM-20 questionnaire for measuring the Big Five. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 17, 385–402.
Urquijo, I., Extremera, N., & Villa, A. (2015). Emotional intelligence, life satisfaction, and psychologi-cal well-being in graduates: The mediating effect of perceived stress. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11, 1241–1252.
Yang, Y., & Land, K. C. (2016). Age-period-cohort analysis: New models, methods, and empirical appli-cations. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top